Yijing and tarot correlations?

[jukkodave]

Hi Freedda
Having read Bradfords substantial and erudite work on the Tarot I would point out that he only examines a very limited range of possibilities for the 22 cards of the Major Arcana. There are other interpreations that make far more sense. That does rather limit any interpretations of that particular pice of his work.
As much as I dont like to critique Bradfords work at all, it has to be seen that statistically there being so many minor arcana cards, plus the major arcana cards that it is likely to be able to find corellations with any individual part of the Yi one cares to consider. Only if there was coherency in the relationships could it be ssen to have correlations.
And it is rather strange that he does say that there is little agreement on the meanings and then develops detailed meanings, which are only one of the many "types " of meaning that are use in connection with the Tarot, and not aprticularly the ones that would find any clear correlation with Astrology and so would be hard to "fit" Tarot and Astrology with the intepreations of the Tarot he uses.
He does not explain how 8 or 64 has any realcorrelation with the 22 major arcana or the 56 minor arcana. 8 does go into the total minor cards but as they are made up of distinct Numbers 1-10 and 4 court cards it is hard to see the rationality of how it all connects and it may be nothing more than numerical coincedence. The addition of the known images of the Yi that also add up to 78 may be relevant or it may be coincidence. Bradford does acknowledge that despite the total there is no other clear correlations within the layouts.

Unfortunately his article is rather short in each section on the comparison with other complex systems and by need of brevity I suspect rather simplistic.
And while he suggests that if we superimpose various complex systems over each other they get bent or stretched a little that is actually not correct. The little bends and stratches between the other complex systems can actaully be easily explained, most of which are down to rather simple errors that many have questioned in one way or another, and it is only the Yi that has to be bent and stretched to make it fit with the others. But it has to be stratched huge amounts. That is hardly surprising given that the Yi is an iteration of binary values and whether we call them Yin and Yang or even if the concept was given a name the fact that a line is binary reveals the nature of the Yi.
The question has lawys been as to why are there 6 lines. There is significance in 6, that correlates with the other complex sytems that Bradford references.

But hardly esoteric if it all connects together and there are underlying principles in the Yi.

Any thoughts?

Dave

 

[hilary]

(Moved from this thread.)

 

[Gmulii]

This is from "ode to flying star", classic text for the Xuan Kong玄空 systems from a few centuries ago.

http://www.davidyek.com/yifengshui/category/ode-to-flying-stars-391342614336171

The glyph on the left seems strangely similar to the Tree of Life of the Kabbalists.
Yesod, Hod and Nezach are merged and the outside paths are gone... Makes someone wonder if there was reason for that...

That Tree was used to go deeper into the Tarot Cards a little more then a century ago. Even though how they are related is a subject to some controversy, it seems everyone that made Tarot popular today would fully agree they were suppose to be used together

China had no connection to the hermetic orders back then, both were very closed of as exchange of information required more then just learning the language. Not just that, but they were very happy with CM, so no indication they had any interest in Kabbalah even if they could find info about it.

Suggesting that in both places understanding of that glyph as something they arrived by themselves. And that maybe that same glyph is something that can be arrived at from many systems in Metaphysics.
Bringing the interesting idea of how much we can find and connect with if we search what was the ideas that both places arrive at so far from each other, not only by distance but also by culture and traditions.

Sadly, the whole Xuan Kong玄空 systems are based on the 5 elements, suggesting that without knowing them we can't really understand that glyph even less work with it or relate it to western schools.

In my humble opinion the key to understang that connection and with that the connection to Tarot to all of the tools used in CM(branches/stems/elements/trigrams/hexagrams etc.)are the 十神. That would make sense, from perspective of a CM practitioner, 十神 in the old classics are described as potentially showing everything in creation and can encompass it all.
But 十神 are also based on the 5 elements...

In that sense it depends what we want to work with. I haven't checked what members here have related, as I had made my own relation many years ago, so no questions in that part of the systems. Although I'm guessing it was very different. But in any case, a lot can be said about this, but to even begin need very good understanding of 十神 and 玄空.

 

[jukkodave]

Hi Gmulii

Could I ask that for those that dont read Chinese that you provide the translation.
There are many that will read the post and not know what you mean by 十神.

I think there is an inherent problem with quoting things like the Xuan Kong玄空 systems from a few centuries ago, relatively modern times, in connection with things that go back thousands of years.
How would we know if Wu JingLuan is accurate or correct without an understanding and knowledge of the underlying factors.

Which you suggest in this case is 5E. But unfortunately I havent seen any evidence to support the argument that 5E has any validity in itself or that it was much than a "construction" of the Han scholars in their attempt to unite the various schools at the time and so was a politically motivated construction.

As regards the 十神. That cannot be taken in isolation without the consideration of the 12.

As far as the 10 is concerned that could easily be seen as an equivalent of the 10 heavenly bodies, the planets of the solar system and part of the Astrology systems. The remarkable thing is that the ancient Chines had awareness of these things without recourse to any modern equipment. But then perhaps that should not be to much of a surprise. There is ample evidence to show that the heavenly bodies "affect" and "influence" life and so the resonances, for the want of a better word,of the 10 and 12 would be available to those that knew how to access them. Perhaps they, the 10 and 12, are a "part" of the "underlying principles and the ordinances of heaven" that the Yi references.

But any correlation with 10 and 5 would have to show a rational coherence. As the 1o are part of physical nature and have a measurable and observable influence the correlation then would be that 5 would be "halving" the 10. Not quite sure if there could be much validation in that concept.

So it comes down to trusting what we believe we were taught or relying on understanding and knowledge. I used to believe in 5E, stems and branches but the contradictions and lack of rational, coherent and logical explanations of how 5 could be significant in respect to Chinese Medicine, which is based on the 2 ofwhat we now call Yin and Yang and a segmentation of 12, could have any resonance with a system of 5.

So sadly the "whole Xuan Kong玄空 systems", a more recent commentary of just one person it seems, cannot be used as an argument to show connections with anything.

The Tarot is a collection of "22" Major Cards and 56 minor cards. To understand the Tarot one first has to understand why there are Major and minor Arcanas. One would have to understand the underlying principles of the Kabbalah. Then one might begin to see if there are any connections to each other.
If you think that 5E is an underlying principle that you would have to be able to "demonstrate" with some rational, coherent and logical arguments not only why 5E might be considered to be valid but also how they were all connected.

It might well be, but unless there are solid and sound arguments to support such theories, they are going to remain beliefs. Of course a belief is just another way of saying that one doesnt know. I had a belief in 5E, stems and branches but when I went looking for the evidence to validate that what I had been taught was correct I found more and more discepancies and contradictions in the theories of 5E and, as far as Chines Medicine was concerned I found that a better understanding of the fundamental underlying principles, built on the structures of the dynamics of Qi, Yin and Yang and the framework of the 8 principles, which I quickly realised should be 6 as Yin and Yang are to findamental to be included as a manifiestation of themselves and the other 6 of the 8 Principles are manifestations of Yin and Yang anyway. Suggesting of course that the underlying principles of Chines Medicine have artificially been altered to fit with concepts of 8. Which is not to say that 8 is without merit, as one of the early iterations of the dynamic principles represented by Yin and Yang 8 is obviously of great imporatance. But then even more so is 4 and we come back the the knotty question of why the early descriptions of a system of 5 placed the 5th at the centre, connecting the 4 individual elements. Being a point of connection it is significantly different from the other 4. How then did it become that the 5th factor migrate to the outer to become one of the other 4, with equal value, and if not equal value then it couldnt be part of the circular arrangement.

So 5E doesnt fit or resonate with the 10 heavenly bodies, unless you could show a mathematical rational for how there are pairs of planets that are resonating around a central underlying principle.
It doesnt obviously fit with 12, it doesnt fit with 8, with 78 or with 64. Infact out of all of them it would seem that 5 is the one that resonates least and the one that is most difficult to argue, in a rational, coherent and logical manner, has any validity, without resorting to a belief structure.

I think that it is time that we ditched the whole Western, Eastern perspctive. Knowledge and understanding, direct experience, resonance, logic, rational and coherent argument, are not confined to one or the other, each has perhaps, as a starting point only, an viewpoint advantage but each also has viewpoint disadvantage. East and West we all share the same dna and unless you could prove that Nature held sway over Nurture, and that any arguments put foreward were not those of Nurture, and that if they were the arguments of Nature that the Nature of the West and East was significantly different in resect of understanding and knowing, then the discrimination between West and East has to be seen as an entirely artificial one that serves no purpose at all.

All the best

Dave

 

[Gmulii]

Xuan Kong玄空 are just Five Arts schools in China connected to a legendary Feng Shui Grandmaster called Jiang Dahong.
They have become very popular, as part of San Yuan(basically part of the system that works heavily with time) and is the modernized movement, as the old San He systems work a lot more with space, without adjusting for the Yuans.
Both use the Five elements of course, as all the Five Arts do.

十神 is "ten shens", so if we view "shen" as "I"(pure awareness of something existing), then 10 I's are just 10 points of awareness that something is existing. But again to have any actual sense we need to be very good at working with the Chinese calendar and the 5E, as they are made in a very specific way in any school they are used with small differences based on style of reading.


About the 5E, cool, don't use them then. But much of what is mentioned here will be meaningless as they are the foundation for the whole Five Arts(even for the glyph mentioned here, as we can see the divisions with the clear idea that you can't set 4 things in the 4 corners and not recognize that something will be born in the center)..

 

[jukkodave]

Hi Gmulii

"Xuan Kong玄空 are just Five Arts schools"

Yes but relatively recent, so nothing to validate them in terms of any historical criteria or evidence that 5E is a valid concept.

"十神 is "ten shens"

So nothing new or different about that which connects it to 5E. Shens, heavenly bodies or influences, planets, same essence, same energy, and still nothing to cennect to 5E, other than a theroy which has no logical, rational or coherent structure or reason.

"much of what is mentioned here will be meaningless"

But no not meaningless at all. I have made it clear that I know and understand the theories od 5E, stems and branches.

If you want to believe that they have application, fine, use them. But the questions here in a Forum dedicated to the Yi is what is applicable to the Yi. So therer would have to be a may of demonstrating that 5E works and has coherent, rational relevance to the Trigrams. No sign of any such evidence.

Of course you can set 4 things in 4 corners without having anything in the centre. It is not like a wheel that "needs" a centre and if it is a centre then it has a completely different quality to the other 4. If it has a different quality then that would make no sense to then have the "centre" point migrated to the outside to make an equal based 5E theory. A point at the centre, joining the other parts together would be like the human beings consciousness capable of knowing the 4 elements. If something is a the centre joining it all together it would have all the qualities of all of the rest. Which would go some way to explaining why you think that there might be "wet earth".

So nothing in anything to demonstrate that there is any rational, coherent or logical basis for 5 Nything of significance, let alone something as fundamental as an "element", which is of course seomething fundamental that cannot be reduced. so kind of important to know if and how a 5th element might actually come in to existence after being something that links the 4 elements together.

All teh best

Dave

You could just as easily try to argue that there need to be something equally between each of the 4 corners as well, That would explain the 8 but with one still at the centre that makes it a 9, so it still doesnt fit.

 

[Freedda]

This thread started as a 'spin-off' from a comment I made in another discussion, where I mentioned Bradford Hatcher's

Tarot as a Counseling Language: Core Meanings of the Cards - (where) he provides 'correspondences' between the cards and the Yi (hexagrams, trigrams, etc.) - not exactly from a 'Yi' perspective or dimension, and perhaps a bit esoteric for some people, but that's each person's choice I expect.

.... and there has now been people's discussion / back and forth based on that.

So, I just want to to interject that my 'correspondence' between the Yi and Hatcher's tarot is much simpler than much of what I'm reading here.

It's more as if I found inspiration in a book of poems; for me, it doesn't really matter how complete or accurate, or fact-based the poems are; nor do I care what the author's background or credentials are; nor do I care if the poems are well-crafted or structured.

What matters to me is that I've found meaning and inspiration in this particular book of poems - nothing more matters really, at least to me.

D.

 

[jukkodave]

Hi Freedda

Nice to hear that you enjoy a bit of poetry.

I would have to disagree. Hatchers Tarot is far from simple and theere is a distinct lack of coherence about it.

If they arent accurate then while they might be nice" poems" for you, I might try and read them in that sense, but if they are are not relevant "corespndences then that might bea risk of creating confusion rather than clarity.

It is after all one or the other. Either something actually illuminates or it doesnt.


All the best

Dave

 

[Freedda]

.... I would have to disagree. Hatchers Tarot is far from simple and there is a distinct lack of coherence about it. If they arent accurate then while they might be nice" poems" for you, I might try and read them in that sense, but if they are are not relevant "corespndences then that might bea risk of creating confusion rather than clarity.

It is after all one or the other. Either something actually illuminates or it doesnt.

First, your concern about the 'risk of creating confusion rather than clarity' is duly noted.

I wasn't saying that they are 'nice poems'; I was only making the analogy that if something is inspiring for me or gives me something to think about or consider, that the source or the coherance don't always matter to me - as is the case here (especially since I don't know anything about tarot, or poetry either).

To use another anology, it is like a piece of art which is inspiring for one person, but others say 'the perspective is all wrong', or 'his color palette is too limited', or 'the colors are not accurate' - all of which might mean nothing to the person who's enjoying what they are seeing and experiencing. I like looking at Rothko's work, others might not, it is that 'simple' for me.

And as you said, it either illuminates or it doesn't, and for me it does. And if it doesn't for you, that's fine too. I don't see it as right or wrong, or agreeing or disagreeing - it's just something I found useful and inspiring, nothing more.

Unless your disagreement is with Bradford's correspondences and what he is writing about the tarot, in which case that's a discussion that's probably best raised with him (though I don't know know if he's paying attention here, or much cares).

Or, are you implying that there is something wrong or you disagree with what I find useful or inspiring in my life? That I shouldn't like a Rothko painting, or a Gary Snyder poem, or a Bradford Hatcher tarot reading?

D.

 

[jukkodave]

Hi Freedda

Sorry that you are taking hat I am saying in the wrong way .
I was trying to be nice and express that it is nice that one finds pleasure in something.

I think it is a difference in what we are compreheinding with terminology. Herein lies some of the problems with translation, If we have difficulties with a laonguage that we both know then how much more from one alnguage to another for concepts that have no correlation in the other language.

My fault, I should have been clearer in my use of language and explained what I meant.

Whay I meant by "illumination" is the light of insight.

So taking the example of Rothkos's work. I agree that it can be an almost unpleasnat experince for some but for others it may be a pleasure, an inspiration but the illumination would be say a painter that looks at it, analyses the colours and the brush work and suddenly just "gets " why it works. That is more as to what I meant by illuimination. The insight into the world beyond our senses and not the experience attached to our senses.

As for Bradfords work, I gave up a long time ago of trying to raise things with authors, they tend to ahve invested so much effort in their wrks that they rarely take kindly to being critiqued in any way at all.
What I do find useful though is using someones work, perhaps in the opposite way that most might as a quote to support and validate and argument, but in the opposite way, to show that an idea cannot be correct because of the contradictions and discrepancies presented in a partiicular work. Often those doing such work have done considerable research and that is a valuable source rather than the interpretations that get made from that research.

For rather personal reasons I am acutally aware of how part of the brain is inclined to create complete pictures out of very little and often debatable information. My default now is to question before believing, Infact as I recognise that beleif is really another way of saying that one dies not know I try not to have any beliefs at all. That is an astonishingly hard thing to do as we are battered everyday by all sorts of things requiring us to believe and it seems that most people want everyone to believe the same things they do.
A large part of that understanding and experience is from knowing how different parts of the brain work and why they work. I lost a rather large chunk of my brain but becuse i had studied Neurology I was aware what was happening and was able to monitor the brains functioning. You may not be surprised to find that I am in argument with my Neuroosychologist about how the brain works. But I have 2 things on my side. The first is that despite an enormous amount of difficulties in all aspects of my life I am doing consderable better than was ever expected, I was destined to be wheelchair bound and be liitle more than a vegetable and I can d all sorts of things that are completely not expected considering the large amount of brain damage sustained. The second is that I have used my understanding of how the brain works to cure people of things that are apparently not curable. One person had a stroke to his Brocas area, the part that controls speech, he could barely speak, even single words were a struggle for him. 2o minutes later he was talking almost fluently. According to the "theories" that is not possible, according to the theories I should be dead or very limited mentally and physically. While I would not wish any one to go through what I went through it does give one insights that are prehaps denied to most people. That brutality of facing the truth is often not an easy burden to bear as it does shine the light on so many of the things that we as humans simply believe without any substance and when examined many of those beliefs turn out to be castles made of sand. But that is just the way, or rather one way, the human brain works and I think that it is our goal in life to recognise that and grow beyond any limitations to our maximum capacity. I think that works like the Yi have the insight into the fundamental underlying principles that can help us on that journey, but only if we have the understanding that enables that to happens and one of the major problems is that the part of our brains that tend to direct us away from our inner self is also the part that makes things up and needs to believe in things, that wanst to only focus on the outer life, even though it talks as though it wants to go inwards when required to shut up it makes a merry song and dance that makes it very difficult. So all I am doing in one sense is recognising the nature of our brains in its tendency and impulses to go in differnt directions with different goals and motives. That is the frustrating thing, that part of it all fits, but the history of the Yi and perhaps what it has become, makes it difficult to see the clarity that must lie in the Yi, if it is something that connects to and is a relection of the inner world.

How that all connects and what we access when we cast a reading, whether that is our subconscious alone and that is the limit of what we can know or if there is some sort of connectivity to the rest of the universe or some sort of coolective uncinsciousness and how that all ties together I ahve no idea. At the moment I am swamped with all the inconsistencies and contradictions. That makes it ahrd and the reason why I asked the Yi if I should continue as I was getting nothing posistive back, lots of negativity and everyone seemed to think I was arguing for the sake of it. The Yi said most clearly, continue.

All the best

Dave

 

[Freedda]

Hi Freedda .... Sorry that you are taking hat I am saying in the wrong way. I was trying to be nice and express that it is nice that one finds pleasure in something.

Well good. I can certainly appreaciate that too.

I think it is a difference in what we are compreheinding with terminology. Herein lies some of the problems with translation,

My point - or at least part of it - is that what I may glean or be inspired by might easily go beyond 'translation.' For example, I don't necessarily know if what Bradford Hatcher is right or wrong, I was only saying that I sometimes find meaning and inspiration in it. As I said, that goes beyond right or wrong for me. And I gather that from what you said above, that if I find some meaning or pleasure in it, you have no issue with that.

Whay I meant by "illumination" is the light of insight. So taking the example of Rothkos's work. I agree that it can be an almost unpleasnat experince for some but for others it may be a pleasure, an inspiration but the illumination would be say a painter that looks at it, analyses the colours and the brush work and suddenly just "gets " why it works. That is more as to what I meant by illuimination. The insight into the world beyond our senses and not the experience attached to our senses.

Yes, and I'd only add that you don't have to be an artist to 'get it'. And it doesn't have to be a
Rothko painting that helps you get it - it could be the Yi, or trigrams, or the Dao, or ......

As for Bradfords work, I gave up a long time ago of trying to raise things with authors, .....

And as I said, if you have an issue or questioning of his work, that is a different issue than my gaining meaning or inspiration from it.

A large part of that understanding and experience is from knowing how different parts of the brain work and why they work. I lost a rather large chunk of my brain but becuse i had studied Neurology I was aware what was happening and was able to monitor the brains functioning. You may not be surprised to find that I am in argument with my Neuroosychologist about how the brain works.

I really appreciate that you're willing to share this very personal and perhaps very difficult information about yourself. I often have disagreements with people at work, and a close friend of mine has said to me, 'well, you just see things differently than they do.' Which is to say, it's a two way street all this communication stuff!

How that all connects and what we access when we cast a reading, whether that is our subconscious alone and that is the limit of what we can know or if there is some sort of connectivity to the rest of the universe or some sort of coolective uncinsciousness and how that all ties together I ahve no idea.

Well, welcome to the monkey house! I'd suspect that we're all in the same boat here. But for me, here's the thing: just as you don't know know what we access in a reading, perhaps all the tools we use - the Yi, tarot, meditation, drugs, the trigrams, 5E, the dao, yin/yang .... are all just different ways that we're all trying to understand ourselves and the universe, and that we all might be finding inspiration or meaning in different ways. That's about all I can make if it really.

So again, thanks. Best, D.

 

[jukkodave]

Hi Freedda

"you don't have to be an artist to 'get it'. And it doesn't have to be a
Rothko painting that helps you get it - it could be the Yi, or trigrams, or the Dao, or ."

Of course you are right. you dont have to be an artist to get "it". Inspiration is something that strikes us directly.
But inspiration is substantively different from knowing, knowledge and understanding.

"know know what we access in a reading, perhaps all the tools we use - the Yi, tarot, meditation, drugs, the trigrams, 5E, the dao, yin/yang .... are all just different ways that we're all trying to understand ourselves and the universe, and that we all might be finding inspiration or meaning in different ways."

Wow there are a huge number of overlapping factors and inherent contradiction in that statement.
"ourselves and the universe" may not be the same thing, unless the underlying principles are the same in both us and the universe. If we are only accessing our subconscious when we do a reading, which is the most likely scenario, if there is no clarity, and rational coherent, knowledge and understanding and explanations of the underlying principles, then that is entirely different from accessing the "universe", and even if the subconscious appears to have access to things that we dont consciously know or understand, unless the subconscious is part of the universe, which wouldnt be met by "collective" consciousness, unless we understand what and how that is, we would have no way of discriminating which parts were just subconscious to us personally, which parts were collective consciousness and which parts were underlying principles.

The Yi, Tarot, meditation, drugs, Trigrams, 5E, the Dao, Yin/Yang are all ways that we are trying to understand ourselves and the universe; only works if those things are in fact ways to access the "underlying principles". If they arent, and cannot be shown to be representations or ways of accessing ourselves and the universe, then all they do is maintain the "belief structures" that our brains have created. There are many drugs that claim to illuminate, and they may well do, but I dont see any evidence of that illumination bring clarity and understanding. In many cases although the "drugs" may change people dramatically, one cannot deny those very profound experiences, the impact, mainly because there is no rationl and coherent framework of understanding, not only doesnt bring the completeness that one would expect of illumination but can often be a great burden for those that have had such profound experiences. Meditation in itself may bring a calmness, because it regulates the breathing, calms the vagus nerve, gives a break from the constant internal chatter, but those are physiological and nothing to do with understanding ourselves and the universe. Only if the "meditation" was accessing the "underlying principles" would meditation bring understanding and clarity.
The questions of what the Yi and the Tarot are accessing and any knowledge and understanding we have of how and if those are connected and if they are indeed accessing "ouselves" or the "universe" is of course the point I am trying to make. They may be , they may not and may just be nothing other than any other made of source of divination, that may or may not be accessing deeper parts of us and "guiding" us or may just be nothing other than a figment of our fertile imaginations, the tendency to create the illusion of beliefs, and we are reading answers into readings of Yi and Tarot that simply dont exist. All are possible, and unless we have the knowing, the knowledge and the understanding that brings rational, coherent clarity and so are able to discriminate and communicate that understanding then no one, including ourselves is ever going to know what anything means and any reading could be the most insightful thing ever or the fabrication of delusion.

5E and Trigrams have no rational, coherent or logical basis and so are more likely to be diverting us away from any understanding of ourselves and the Universe.

Dao and Yin/Yang only make sesne when we know, understand and have knowledge of them. Otherwise how would we know if our interpretations were correct or not.
There is of course the principle that if one truly understands the Dao one could write such a book oneself and if one needs to read the Dao for illumination into onesself or the universe it is because we dont know or understand it. Though even with knowing and understanding there would still be inspiration in such works.
The same is true of Yin and Yang. Yhose that came up with the Dao and Yin and Yang had no books to read, no one to guide or inspire them, they had to know and experience those for themselves in a direct way. Thos are underlying principles, those are the result of direct experience and anything other than that is hanging on to the coat tails of those that have gone before and without that direct experience we have no measures nor framework with which to evaluate if anything that has followed is a reflection of those fundamental underlying principles or a construct of the human mind that so desperately needs to have answers for everything and gets so distressed when anyone raises questions that their brains cannot answer, or raises questions that highlight the possibility that we are just caught in a belief structure that has no more validity that any other belief structure and may not even be doing what it claims.

But these are important questions. In trying to answer them in a rational and coherent manner and considering all the possibilities they can serve to knock down the walls of illusion and delusion that may be the only substance of the walls of our beliefs. If the walls remain really intact and we are honest and truly did examine the structures and they have survived the attacks of rational, coherent and logical analysis, then we will know that they are built on the solid faundations of underlying principles and will remain string and true and then we will be able to express that understanding and knowledge so that others may also have the opportunity of knocking down their walls of illusion and delusion.
Not only can the true and honest examination of the walls we find all around us, bring clarity and understanding of knowing whether the walls were built on solid foundations or those of illusiory beliefs but in the process of knoocking walls down we gain access to new vistas that may illuminate.

All the best

Dave